No worries man. I just want it to be clear I don’t do any drugs.
I was always telling new guys that what you do at CAN and WILL affect what happens at work and to remember how hard it is to get a good paying job that also gives you up to 6 months off a year. Back when my old company began Drug Testing we lost a bunch of really good men. I also agree with what has been said above about working with anyone that might be impaired in any way.
Back in the OLD days, I can remember many of a day swinging at the hook. Those of us that drank did that and others might have smoked. There were always the few that could not just have A Couple before turning in and stayed up until it was all gone. When it came time to turn to for work in the morning the guys that smoked were always ready for work but the guys that drank a little too much were not in any mood to work.
Now, I will say that I feel the pot should be legal but even if it was it would still be a No No for anyone doing the type of work that we do or did.
I have never felt sorry for anyone that tested dirty as they should have known better but chose to take the chance!
1 Like
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;144567]I refer you, sir, to The Constitution Article 1, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power […] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
There was no provision, specifically allowing for the creation of a Federal Bank. Because of the “Elastic Clause”, we were able to have one. I would argue, as anyone throughout history that sees the constitution as an elastic document, that if it is not specifically PROHIBITED in the constitution then it is allowed.[/QUOTE]
That’s not the most appropriate part of that section. It’s the “commerce clause” that gives the Federal government authority to regulate transportation industries:
[I]The Congress shall have power to… To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
[/I]
The case I cited previously held that navigation (shipping) is included in the authority given by the commerce clause.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;144551]We’re not special, it’s still illegal for airline pilots and truck drivers. Even if it were decriminalized on a federal level it’d still be illegal for us to use most of the time because it’d prbly pop up if you were tested for being currently under the influence.[/QUOTE]
“Probably pop up” while being tested for under the influence is the thing that exposes the hypocrisy of the entire drug testing BS. A raging alcoholic can stay sober long enough to pass a drug test but a drug user will be “popped” for something he did weeks ago because the drug test checks for drugs left in body cells but not alcohol. To test for alcohol you blow in a tube and if you haven’t drank anything in roughly a day you are clear.Who came up with this crap? The liquor lobby? Legality is not an issue as you can be “popped” for using a prescribed drug a week before your drug test but you can can get drunk, drive a car, have a wreck, kill someone, pay your bond,get out of jail, come to work and NOT be popped for alcohol [assuming you didn’t drink after posting bond]. I have worked with alcoholics who had the shakes so bad I didn’t want them around anything moving for the first week back at work.On the other hand I have lost some damn good people who smoked a joint two weeks or so before they came to work. There is something Taliban like about the way this drug testing thing is done. It seems to be more of a moral issue than a legal or liability issue. Sorry but until they start testing for past alcohol use just as they do drug use I consider the entire matter ignorant and hypocritical.
1 Like
I don’t see why past alcohol use is a problem. As long as they aren’t under the influence as they’re operating that’s fine with me. As for other health conditions contracted for chronic use, well if it’s bad enough eventually you’ll fail a physical.
Good point. Now I’ll have to read the case you posted.
Then why are you concerned with past marijuana use??
Only because in a piss test you can’t tell if it was a week ago or a couple hours ago. And it’s federally illegal so… there’s that.
I don’t care if a grocery store clerk lights up on his off time if it’s legal in his state, but I don’t think we should be. Otherwise why don’t we just deschedule and make all the opioid pain killers OTC as well.
I’ll compromise and say if it were decriminalized, which for the record I’m fine with, it shouldn’t be disqualifying in a preemployment test unless the company has a higher standard. On random or periodic tests though the current standard should apply.
I think the current testing is pretty skewed. My understanding is marijuana can stay in the system for a month but crack and meth only a couple days. So a person can tweak out the entire trip across a pond then stop just before port and is fine. But a person can smoke a joint on vacation a month prior and get popped? Honestly I don’t care what people do at home. They need a system in place that can detect drugs while the person is on the job. I’ve seen people hungover who could present more of a danger than the guy who smoke pot one time a few weeks earlier
1 Like
Amen!!! Theirs so much truth to what you wrote. Ive worked with plenty of guys that were almost impossible to work with due to the fact that they had been drinking every day for a month before they came aboard the boat.
Alot of the comments in this thread prove your point that people enjoy judging and pretending to hold a higher moral status if they drink rather than smoke pot.
Of course it’s a moral issue. And there’s nothing logical or fair about flunking and firing the dude who smoked a bowl in front of the boob tube 10 days ago but passing and keeping the guy who got puking drunk at the bar and doesn’t remember driving home three days before crew change. Frankly I don’t really need to know about either as long as no one is using any mind- or performance-altering substances (well, unless there’s a substance that improves either of those) on my boat on my hitch. I do wonder what overriding interest the company OR the government has in what I do in my personal time, when I am not operating an expensive, complicated, potentially dangerous piece of equipment in a trade the government clearly has the authority to regulate. But I knew that last part when I made my career choice, just as I understood the company policy, and I like my job. So I’ll just wait until I retire, by which time it will likely be legal to put my feet up and smoke a fatty wherever I happen to live.
My father had 33 years sailing and a retired chief engineer. He told me " when I retire don’t be surprised to see a lid laying around" of course I had to ask. " WTF? A lid to what?"
1 Like
I agree with everything you said and i agree people shouldnt be under the influence at work.
In regards to the moral issue i was mostly referring to people judging others for what they do at home, not operating equipment stoned on company time.
Someone in this thread lumped pot smokers in with meth heads and heroin users which is surprisingly retarded.
[QUOTE=acesouthcoast;144652]In regards to the moral issue i was mostly referring to people judging others for what they do at home, not operating equipment stoned on company time.
Someone in this thread lumped pot smokers in with meth heads and heroin users which is surprisingly retarded.[/QUOTE]
In regards to the moral issue, I was mostly referring to people who lump pot smokers in with meth heads and heroin users, and don’t see alcoholism as being at least as serious an issue. Blame Nancy Reagan, Reefer Madness, etc., etc. It’s not logical, it’s not supported by any reputable science, and that sort of attitude is inevitably changing … but.
Look, it’s a grownup world out here and the decision to forego recreational drugs in favor of meaningful and remunerative full-time employment is a grown-up kind of decision. If you can’t do the former, you probably have no business doing the latter. Simple as that. (and by you, I don’t mean you, I mean one)
2 Likes
[QUOTE=acesouthcoast;144652]I agree with everything you said and i agree people shouldnt be under the influence at work.
In regards to the moral issue i was mostly referring to people judging others for what they do at home, not operating equipment stoned on company time.
Someone in this thread lumped pot smokers in with meth heads and heroin users which is surprisingly retarded.[/QUOTE]
This is what I said:
I fully encourage any and all US mariners to go ahead and light up, snort up, and shoot up. By all means, please. With fewer qualified, legal mariners it will only increase demand and wages for those of us who value the idea of steady paychecks and employabiity / marketability over what we would like to do on vacation.
I happily get myself in to drunken stupors and therefore stupid situations while at home without having to worry about the next piss test, physical, whatever.
This thread WAS purely about what the USCG is going to test for. I will continue to encourage dipshits to engage in activities (as long as they only hurt themselves) which mean less mariner competition for those of us who can stomach such HARSH rules as not being able to smoke pot or whatever else on vacation.
What were you smoking to even speculate that the drug tests might be changed?
1 Like
[QUOTE=PMC;144930]What were you smoking to even speculate that the drug tests might be changed?[/QUOTE]
AL-in-NY was trying out bath salts. He figured pot was a good segue.
1 Like
That’s what one of my former coworkers thought.
Why do they call it a “Gate Way” drug??